COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


HX64171450 
RC311.1  .C37  Memorandum  submitted 


RECAP 


Ch&rit   ..:ganizat-Lon  Society  --  th      of 

Zork*  Committee  on  the  Prevention 
tuberculosis  * 

norandum  submitted  to  the  Committee  on 

buildings  or  the  Board  ox  aldermen 


JC3//I  £37 

Columbia  (Bnftwtfitj) 

intljeCtipofltaitork 

College  of  iJSfjpgtciana  ana  burgeons 
Hibrarp 


THE    BUILDING    CODE 


AND 


TUBERCULOSIS    PREVENTION 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons 


http://www.archive.org/details/memorandumsubmitOOchar 


Memorandum     Submitted 

to  the  <r\ 

Committee  on    Buildings 

of  the 

Board  of  Aldermen 


BY   THE 

-v       Committee  on  the  Prevention  of  Tuberculosis 

of  the 
Charity  Organization  Society  of  the  City    of  New  York. 

May  15,  1912. 


i^e  s\\.\ 

C-3.1 


THE  Committee  on  the  Prevention  of  Tuberculosis,  which 
is  deeply  interested  in  decreasing  in  every  way  prac- 
ticable the  extent  of  tuberculosis  in  this  city,  and  which 
includes  among  its  members  most  of  the  city's  leading 
physicians  who  have  made  a  special  study  of  this  disease,  respect- 
fully submits  for  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  and  the 
public  the  following  considerations  with  reference  to  the  proposed 
building  code  now  pending  before  that  Board : 

While  we  appreciate  the  disinterested  public  service  which  has 
been  rendered,  and  the  genuine  desire  for  improvement  over 
present  conditions  which  has  actuated  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee who  have  formulated  the  proposed  building  code  now 
under  consideration,  we  are  constrained  to  point  out  certain  vital 
considerations  in  which  the  code  is  so  defective  as  to  make  unwise 
its  adoption  in  its  present  form. 

We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  many  good  features  of  the  code, 
nor  of  the  attempt  made  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  public, 
but  the  methods  employed  are  so  inadequate  and  fall  so  far  short 
of  what  is  desirable  as  the  "irreducible  minimum,"  that  we  are 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  far  better  for  the  com- 
munity to  have  the  code  remain  entirely  silent  upon  certain  ques- 
tions than  to  attempt  to  enact  provisions  as  inadequate  as  those 
contained  in  it. 

This  Committee  is  primarily  interested  only  in  those  provisions 
of  the  code  which  affect  adversely  or  favorably  the  living  and 
working  conditions  of  our  citizens  from  the  point  of  view  of 
tuberculosis  prevention.  While  as  individuals  we  may  be  deeply 
interested  in  many  provisions  of  the  code  having  to  do  with  the 
safety  of  buildings  and  the  protection  of  their  inmates  in  case 
of  fire,  as  members  of  this  Committee  our  interest  centers  only 
around  questions  which  deal  with  light  and  ventilation. 

We  realize  fully  that  at  the  present  time,  with  the  exception 
of  tenement  houses,  lodging  houses,  hotels,  office  buildings  and 
private  dwellings,  there  are  no  legal  requirements  limiting  the 
amount  of  lot  that  can  be  covered  or  regulating  the  spaces  that 
shall  be  left  unoccupied  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  light  and 
ventilation.     The  effort  made  in  the  code  to  extend  these  require- 


ments  to  other  classes  of  buildings  is  to  be  commended,  but  it 
is  to  be  regretted  that  the  attempt  to  carry  out  this  purpose 
should  have  failed  so  signally. 

THE  EVILS  OF  BORROWED  LIGHT. 

The  evils  due  to  the  failure  to  provide  proper  light  and  ven- 
tilation for  each  building  upon  its  own  lot  at  the  time  the  building 
is  erected,  which,  up  to  twelve  years  ago,  was  exemplified  so 
strikingly  in  the  city's  tenement  houses,  have  in  recent  years  devel- 
oped to  an  alarming  extent  in  connection  with  hotels,  office  build- 
ings, factories,  lofts,  private  dwellings,  two-family  houses  and 
other  similar  buildings,  until  the  community  generally  is  aroused 
to  the  evils  of  borrowed  light,  and  even  property  owners  them- 
selves have  become  aware  of  the  disadvantages  of  permitting  a 
new  building  to  be  erected  securing  its  light  above  the  roof  of  an 
adjoining  building,  or  from  property  abutting  it,  and  at  the  time 
vacant,  but  which  will  sooner  or  later  be  built  upon,  and,  when 
built  upon,  will  result  in  the  shutting  out  of  light  and  air  from 
the  building  in  question,  thus  creating  numerous  dark  rooms. 

THOUSANDS    OF   WINDOWLESS   ROOMS    FOR   NEW 

BUILDINGS. 

It  would  seem  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  City  of  New 
York  should  prohibit  the  erection  in  the  future  of  buildings  with 
windowless  rooms.  We  have  heard  so  much  in  recent  years  of 
the  great  number  of  these  rooms  in  our  tenement  houses,  and  of 
their  intimate  bearing  upon  the  tuberculosis  problem,  that  it 
hardly  seems  possible  that  any  responsible  group  of  citizens,  in 
formulating  a  code  regulating  the  types  of  buildings  to  be  con- 
structed in  the  future,  should  have  knowingly  permitted  the 
erection  of  all  kinds  of  buildings  with  any  number  of  windowless 
rooms. 

We  regret  to  have  to  point  out  that  this  is  the  case  with  regard 
to  the  present  code.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a  dark  room 
without  a  window  to  the  outer  air,  and  without  proper  light  or 
ventilation,  is  just  as  dangerous  in  a  two-family  house,  in  a  one- 
family  house,  in  a  boarding  house,  in  a  factory,  or  in  a  hotel, 
as  in  a  tenement  house,  it  is  proposed  to  permit  the  erection  of 
such  rooms  practically  without  limitation.  The  dark  room  will 
foster  and  develop  tuberculosis  in  one  case  quite  as  much  as  in 
the  other. 


4 


The  framers  of  the  code  apparently  set  out  with  the  intention 
of  doing  away  with  dark  and  windowless  rooms,  but  succeeded 
only  in  proposing  a  weak  compromise  which  vitiates  the  entire 
effort. 

In  the  first  place,  to  limit  only  to  sleeping  rooms  the  require- 
ment that  rooms  shall  have  windows  to  the  outer  air,  is  singu- 
larly shortsighted.  Light  and  ventilation  are  quite  as  necessary 
in  the  other  rooms  of  a  dwelling  as  in  the  sleeping  room.  In  the 
kitchen,  for  instance,  in  many  houses  the  mother  of  the  family 
spends  two-thirds  of  her  time,  as  against  one-third  in  the  sleeping 
room ;  and  in  the  parlor,  back  parlor,  dining  room,  and  other 
rooms,  the  other  members  of  the  family  spend  quite  as  much 
time  as  in  the  sleeping  rooms,  and  often  more.  Windowless 
rooms  are  objectionable,  whether  in  sleeping  rooms  or  in  other 
rooms. 

Moreover,  if  the  requirement  is  limited  to  "sleeping  rooms," 
the  law  will  be  easily  evaded,  and  architects  who  wish  to  escape 
compliance  with  its  provisions  will  simply  mark  various  rooms  on 
their  plans,  with  some  designation  other  than  sleeping  room,  such 
as  parlor,  back  parlor,  storeroom,  etc.,  and  the  authorities  will 
be  powerless  to  prevent  this  evasion,  even  though  they  may  be 
morally  certain  that  the  rooms  are  to  be  used  for  sleeping  pur- 
poses. Our  building  departments  are  not  so  organized  that  they 
can  station  inspectors  in  all  houses  to  see  that  rooms  are  used 
for  the  purposes  stated  on  the  plans.  It  would  require  an  army 
of  inspectors  to  do  this,  nor  would  it  be  desirable. 

The  only  way  to  get  satisfactory  results  is  not  to>  permit  the 
erection  of  buildings  with  dark  rooms  in  them,  as  there  are  no 
parts  of  the  majority  of  buildings  where  it  is  safe,  from  a  sani- 
tary point  of  view,  to  have  rooms  constructed  without  direct  light 
and  ventilation.  Again,  the  open  spaces  that  these  rooms  are 
required  to  open  upon  are  entirely  inadequate  to  secure  light 
and  ventilation. 

LAW  EVASION  MADE  EASY. 

More  serious  even  than  any  of  these  considerations  is  the 
fact  that  the  entire  requirement  is  completely  vitiated  by  per- 
mitting dark  windowless  rooms  in  the  guise  of  alcove  rooms, 
with  a  certain  portion  of  the  room  open  to  an  adjoining  room. 
New  York  has  had  its  experience  with  alcove  rooms  and  has 
learned  its  lesson  thoroughly.     It  needs  no  further  experi- 


ments.  Its  experience  with  alcove  rooms  in  tenement  houses 
has  been  entirely  conclusive.  Here,  twelve  years  ago,  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  permit  alcoves  of  exactly  the  same  type 
as  it  is  proposed  to  permit  now,  with  the  result  that  archi- 
tects and  builders  at  once  took  advantage  of  this  provision  and 
proceeded  to  construct  in  tenement  houses  numerous  rooms 
without  any  windows  to  the  outer  air,  totally  dark,  providing 
one  room  with  windows  and  then  opening  from  it,  in  different 
directions,  four  or  five  other  totally  dark  alcove  rooms. 

From  a  sanitary  point  of  view  the  alcove  room,  without 
direct  outside  ventilation  and  light,  is  more  objectionable 
even  than  the  dark  room  with  only  the  ordinary  doorway  to 
the  adjoining  room.  Where  the  alcove  is  provided,  invari- 
ably curtains  and  portieres  are  soon  hung  in  the  openings, 
shutting  out  generally  as  much  light  and  air  as  the  partition 
would  exclude  and  in  addition  serving  as  catch-alls  for  germs 
and  dirt. 

The  only  satisfactory  method  is  to  require  all  rooms  to 
get  their  light  and  air  directly  from  a  proper  open  space.' There 
is  no  objection  to  the  alcove  treatment  of  rooms,  but  the 
portion  thus  treated  should  have  its  independent  means  of 
light  and  ventilation. 

Attention  is  also  called  to  the  impropriety,  in  the  year 
1912,  of  permitting  new  buildings  to  be  built  with  attic  sleep- 
ing rooms,  with  the  roof  sloping  down  to  almost  nothing 
throughout  a  portion  of  the  room.  It  is  to  be  regretted  also 
that  a  minimum  height  of  9  feet,  such  as  is  required  for 
tenement  houses,  is  not  established  in  place  of  a  height  of 
8  feet  6  inches,  and  that  attic  rooms  are  not  strictly  prohibited 
unless  of  that  height  in  all  their  parts. 

DARK  AND  UNVENTILATED  FACTORIES. 

We  would  also  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  notwith- 
standing the  new  knowledge  that  has  been  gained  in  recent 
years  of  the  importance  of  the  adequate  lighting  and  venti- 
lation of  places  in  which  people  work,  that  the  old  type  of 
"Loft-factory"  is  continued.  This  highly  objectionable  type 
of  building  has  been  prevalent  in  this  city  for  many  years,  a 
building  getting  its  light  and  ventilation  only  from  the  street 
and  from  an  inadequate  yard  at  the  rear,  without  proper  pro- 
vision for  the  lighting  of  the  interior  portions  which  consist 


of  a  long,  open  floor  space  that  gets  its  sole  light  and  air 
from  these  few  windows  at  each  end  of  the  building,  and 
which  often  is  subdivided  in  all  sorts  of  ways. 

The  results  of  the  failure  to  recognize  the  importance  of 
this  requirement  are  now  becoming  obvious  in  the  researches 
that  have  recently  been  made  into  the  study  of  industrial 
diseases. 

Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  under  the  Labor  Laws 
of  the  state,  owners  of  all  such  buildings  are  now  required 
to  install  methods  of  artificial  ventilation.  This,  in  many 
cases,  has  caused  great  hardship  and  has  aroused  great  oppo- 
sition. It  is  not  strange,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  has  involved 
an  expenditure  of  from  one  thousand  to  twenty  thousand 
dollars  in  many  cases.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  this  fact, 
no  provision  whatever  has  been  made  to  remedy  these  condi- 
tions. Under  the  proposed  code  a  building  of  this  type  may 
be  erected  in  the  year  1912,  and  shortly  after  it  is  completed 
and  occupied,  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  will  cause  the 
owners  to  install  artificial  systems  of  ventilation  at  great  cost. 
It  would  seem  the  part  of  wisdom  to  anticipate  this  situation, 
and  to  require  that  buildings  of  this  kind  when  built  shall 
be  so  built  as  to  secure  such  ventilation,  instead  of  imposing 
serious  structural  alterations  at  great  expense  upon  the  owners 
of  such  property,  after  the  buildings  have  been  completed 
and  occupied. 

Yet  notwithstanding  the  well-recognized  evils  of  insuffi- 
cient light  and  ventilation,  the  proposed  code  is  totally  inade- 
quate in  its  provisions  dealing  with  these  primal  necessities. 

RULE  OF  THUMB  METHODS. 

Moreover,  the  method  employed  of  determining  the  amount 
of  space  to  be  left  unoccupied  so  as  to  furnish  light  and  air  is 
both  unscientific  and  unreasonable.  It  is  apparently  based 
upon  no  principle,  but  seems  to  have  been  determined  by  "rule 
of  thumb."  The  principle,  which  was  established  in  the  tene- 
ment house  law  a  number  of  years  ago,  is  sound  and  has 
proved  satisfactory  in  practice.  That  principle  is  to  establish 
a  minimum  size  for  all  open  spaces  and  then  to  require  that 
such  open  spaces  shall  be  increased  a  proportionate  amount 
for  each  story  that  the  building  is  increased  in  height.  Thus 
in  the  tenement  house  law  the  minimum  depth  of  a  yard  in 


the  case  of  a  building  60  feet  high  is  13  feet,  and  for  each 
additional  story  or  12  feet  that  the  building  is  increased  in 
height,  the  yard  must  be  increased  one  foot  in  depth.  A  sim- 
ilar procedure  is  laid  down  in  that  statute  for  all  other  open 
spaces. 

But  not  so  in  the  proposed  building  code.  Here,  arbitrari- 
ly, every  building,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three  classes 
specifically  enumerated,  may  occupy  90%  of  the  lot  irrespec- 
tive of  the  height  of  the  building  so  long  as  it  does  not  ex- 
ceed 75  feet  in  height,  the  equivalent  of  a  seven-story  build- 
ing. Then,  after  this  height  is  exceeded,  87*^%  of  the  lot  may 
be  occupied  so  long  as  the  building  does  not  exceed  150  feet 
in  height.  To  require  no  greater  amount  of  the  lot  to  be  left 
unoccupied  for  light  and  ventilation  in  the  case  of  a  building 
150  feet  high,  or  15  stories,  than  is  required  in  the  case  of  a 
building  80  feet  high  or  8  stories,  is  obviously  unscientific, 
unreasonable  and  improper. 

UNREASONABLE  DISCRIMINATION. 

Again,  an  attempt  is  made  to  discriminate  between  various 
classes  of  buildings  and  to  require  certain  buildings,  viz., 
hotels,  clubhouses,  dormitories  and  lodging  houses,  to  leave 
20%  of  the  lot  area  unbuilt  upon,  whereas  office  buildings, 
factories,  lofts,  libraries,  museums,  theatres,  colleges,  court- 
houses, public  halls,  and  all  other  kinds  of  buildings  (except 
tenement  houses  and  lodging  houses  which  are  governed  by 
state  laws)  need  only  leave  10%  of  the  lot  unoccupied,  or 
one-half  of  what  is  required  in  the  former  case.  Upon  what 
principle  such  discrimination  is  based  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand. Why  clubhouses  should  require  larger  open  spaces 
than  factories  in  which  hundreds  of  workers  are  housed  for 
ten  or  twelve  hours  at  a  time,  is  incomprehensible.  Why 
hotels,  for  example,  should  require  larger  open  spaces  than 
offices  buildings,  is  equally  hard  to  understand.  People  in 
office  buildings  are  there  almost  as  many  hours  in  the  day  as 
are  people  in  hotels;  as  a  rule,  they  need  both  light  and  ven- 
tilation more. 

This  discrimination  is  dangerous.  All  provisions  of  a 
building  code  ultimately  rest  upon  the  reasonable  exercise  of 
the  police  power  of  the  state.  It  would  be  difficult  to  show 
that   the    discrimination    just   alluded   to   is   reasonable,    and    we 

8 


have  serious  doubt  as  to  whether  such  provisions  would  stand 
if  tested  in  the  courts. 

But  the  serious  thing  is  that  the  standards  which  have 
been  proposed  are  totally  inadequate.  To  provide  that  a 
seven-story  factory  building,  situated  on  an  interior  lot  shut 
in  on  all  sides  by  other  buildings  of  similar  or  greater  height, 
shall  leave  only  10%  of  the  area  unbuilt  upon  for  purposes  of 
light  and  ventilation,  obviously  falls  far  short  of  what  is  re- 
quired. A  tenement  house  similarly  situated  would  have  to 
leave  over  30%  of  the  lot  unbuilt  upon. 

The  importance  of  regulating  the  height  of  buildings  relative 
to  the  spaces  upon  which  they  open  has  been  recognized  for  years 
both  in  this  country  and  in  European  cities.  The  proper  principle 
requires  that  the  height  of  a  building  shall  have  distinct  reference 
to  the  width  of  the  street  upon  which  it  faces  and  also,  similarly, 
to  the  open  or  unoccupied  space  at  the  rear  upon  which  it  abuts, 
and  the  space  at  the  rear  should  be  equal  to  the  space  at  the 
front.  The  observance  of  this  requirement  is  necessary,  not  only 
for  securing  both  light  and  ventilation  to  the  various  rooms  and 
interior  parts  of  each  building,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  city 
planning,  and  is  essential  for  what  is  technically  known  as  block 
ventilation — that  is,  the  keeping  in  the  centre  or  interior  of  each 
block  a  continuous  open  space  of  reasonable  size  which  shall  fur- 
nish light  and  ventilation  to  the  rear  portions  of  all  buildings 
abutting  thereon. 

This  is  accomplished  by  requiring  at  the  rear  of  each  building 
a  yard  of  an  adequate  size.  The  size  generally  determined  upon 
has  been  based  upon  the  assumption  that  a  yard  of  similar  size 
would  be  left  upon  the  property  abutting  from  the  adjoining 
street,  thus  leaving  a  continuous  open  space.  In  past  years  in  all 
residence  sections,  and  also  in  business  sections,  this  practice  has 
been  generally  observed  without  any  legal  requirements.  At  the 
present  time  the  only  laws  which  require  this  are  the  tenement 
house  law  and  lodging  house  law ;  until  very  recently,  the  require- 
ment of  the  present  building  code  that  10%  of  the  lot  shall  be 
left  unbuilt  upon,  has  generally  been  interpreted  so  that  this 
amount  would  be  left  at  the  rear  of  the  building,  although  the 
law  has  not  definitely  required  it. 

The  framers  of  the  present  code  are  now  attempting  to  pro- 
vide that  a  yard  shall  be  left  in  the  case  of  every  building  erected 
in  the  future,  and  that  this  clear  open  space  shall  be  at  the  rear 


of  the  lot.  Their  purpose  is  to  be  commended,  but  it  is  to  be 
regretted  that  they  should  have  failed  so  extraordinarily  in  the 
attempt  to  carry  it  out. 

FIVE  FOOT  YARDS. 

What  has  been  proposed  is  incredible.  To  embody  in  a 
code  which  seeks  to  regulate  the  type  of  new  buildings  of  all 
kinds  to  be  erected  in  future  years,  a  provision  that  the  yard 
to  be  left  unbuilt  upon  to  furnish  light  and  ventilation,  in  the 
case  of  buildings  on  interior  lots  surrounded  on  all  sides  by 
other  buildings  of  similar  or  greater  height,  shall  be  the  inade- 
quate dimension  of  five  feet,  is  the  most  extraordinary  pro- 
posal which  New  York  City  has  ever  had  to  consider.  To  ask 
citizens  to  believe  that  a  yard  five  feet  in  depth  is  adequate 
for  a  building  200  feet  in  height  requires  but  little  comment. 

Here,  again,  no  scientific  principle  of  regulating  the  size  of 
unoccupied  spaces  relative  to  the  height  of  buildings  seems  to 
have  been  employed ;  it  has  again  been  done  by  "rule  of  thumb," 
only  the  method  employed  here  has  less  basis  in  reason  than  that 
referred  to  previously.  There,  some  differentiation  was  made 
between  buildings  of  different  height ;  here,  there  is  none,  and  the 
code  assumes  to  state  that  a  yard  5  feet  deep  is  adequate  for  both 
a  two-story  building  20  feet  high  and  for  a  20-story  building  200 
feet  high. 

We  know  from  the  city's  experience  with  the  tenement  house 
law  that  even  the  minimum  size  yard  there  established,  viz.,  a 
yard  12  feet  deep  for  a  five-story  building,  is  hardly  adequate,  and 
even  this  minimum  must  be  increased  one  foot  for  every  additional 
story  of  the  building;  so  that  a  tenement  house  200  feet  high 
would  have  to  have  a  yard  24  feet  in  depth  instead  of  5  feet. 
The  same  standard  is  what  should  be  required  for  all  other  build- 
ings of  a  similar  height.  The  occupancy  of  the  building,  so  long 
as  it  is  intended  for  human  occupancy  at  all,  in  no  way  changes 
the  requirements ;  what  determines  whether  the  space  shall  be 
adequate,  is  the  ratio  between  the  height  of  wall  shutting  out 
light  and  the  open  space  that  will  admit  it. 

Extraordinary  as  this  proposed  provision  is,  even  this  inade- 
quate amount  of  5  feet  is  not  to  be  left  at  all  in  the  case  of 
buildings  on  corner  lots,  thus  making  impossible  any  adequate 
scheme  of  block  ventilation.     If  the  corners  are  to  be  built  up 

10 


solidly  there  is  no  means  by  which  the  air  in  the  interior  of  the 
block  can  be  renewed.  The  only  way  that  this  can  be  secured  is 
by  requiring  an  open  space  on  corner  lots,  as  well  as  on  interior 
lots,  although  this  can  properly  be  less  in  size.  Moreover,  the 
code  is  so  loosely  drawn  that  even  this  tiny  space  of  5  feet  can 
be  completely  filled  up  with  fire-escape  balconies,  cornices  and 
outside  stairs  projecting  into  it,  practically  covering  the  entire 
space.  Similarly,  again,  by  exempting  buildings  from  these  re- 
quirements in  the  case  of  those  houses  which  extend  through 
from  one  street  to  another,  the  entire  plan  of  block  ventilation 
becomes  void. 

THE  RETURN  TO  THE  DISCREDITED  AIR  SHAFT. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  provisions  dealing  with  yards  is 
equalled  in  the  attempt  to  regulate  the  size  of  the  other  open 
spaces  that  are  to  be  left  unbuilt  upon.  The  minimum  size  of 
courts  is  also  established  at  the  inadequate  dimension  of  5  feet, 
but  strangely  enough  here,  for  the  first  time,  there  is  evident  some 
recognition  of  the  principle  which  should  govern.  The  minimum 
standard  is  established,  inadequate  though  it  is,  and  then  it  is 
required  that  for  each  increase  in  the  height  of  the  building  above 
a  certain  height,  the  size  of  the  open  space  shall  be  increased  a 
certain  amount.  But  even  this  principle  could  not  be  adequately 
carried  out  by  the  framers  of  the  code.  In  the  first  place,  there 
is  no  recognition  of  the  essential  difference  between  the  different 
kinds  of  courts — the  inner  court  and  the  outer  court ;  the  inner 
court  enclosed  on  all  four  sides  by  walls,  receiving  its  only  light 
and  air  over  the  roof,  and  the  outer  court,  open  on  at  least  one 
side,  thus  permitting  the  light  and  air  to  stream  into  it  from  that 
end.  The  two  courts  are  essentially  different.  Their  difference 
is  well  recognized  in  the  tenement  house  law,  where  the  inner 
court  is  required  to  be  twice  the  dimensions  of  the  outer  court. 
But  no  such  discrimination  is  made  in  the  code.  All  courts  are 
treated  alike. 

The  minimum  width  of  5  feet  for  a  court  for  a  building  75 
feet,  or  seven  stories  in  height,  is  grossly  inadequate.  In  tene- 
ment houses  of  similar  height  an  inner  court,  surrounded  on  all 
four  sides,  would  have  to  be  25  feet  in  its  minimum  width,  instead 
of  5  feet,  as  provided  here  for  factories,  hotels,  lofts,  office  build- 
ings, and  all  buildings.  Experience  with  the  tenement  house  law 
shows  that  this  dimension  has  proved  to  be  a  proper  standard,  not 


11 


too  much  or  too  little,  and  that  a  court  of  such  size  will  furnish 
reasonable  light  and  ventilation. 

When  we  consider  the  method  of  regulation  providing  for 
an  increase  in  the  size  of  courts  with  an  increased  height  of 
buildings,  and  contrast  the  plan  proposed  here  with  what 
is  required  for  tenement  houses  under  the  present  law,  we 
can  see  the  total  inadequacy  of  this  measure.  In  the  case  of 
a  tenement  house  150  feet  high,  that  is,  a  twelve  story  apart- 
ment house,  an  inner  court  of  the  type  above  described  would 
have  to  be  32  feet  in  its  least  dimension ;  that  is,  would  have 
to  be  increased  7  feet  above  the  minimum  for  a  building  75 
feet  high.  In  the  code  such  a  court  needs  only  to  be  8  feet 
wide  as  compared  with  32  feet  for  tenements. 

All  of  these  provisions  are,  moreover,  so  loosely  drawn 
that  it  would  be  possible  for  unscrupulous  builders  to  com- 
pletely evade  them.  The  requirement  is  that  the  minimum 
width  of  courts  shall  be  the  distance  between  opposite  boundary 
walls.  As  is  frequently  the  practice,  courts  are  built  on  the  lot 
line  with  one  side  entirely  open  to  the  adjoining  property, 
which  may  happen  to  be  unbuilt  upon  at  the  time  the  building 
is  erected  or  which  may  be  above  the  roof  of  a  lower  building 
on  adjoining  property.  In  such  cases  it  would  be  entirely 
feasible  to  claim  that  the  "opposite  boundary  wall"  was  the 
nearest  wall,  which  might  be  hundreds  of  feet  away,  and  even 
the  inadequate  5  feet  would  be  not  left,  but  the  property 
could  be  built  upon  right  up  to  the  lot  line.  Such  attempts 
have  been  made  by  builders  in  the  past  and  would  undoubtedly 
be  made  in  the  future,  and  in  view  of  the  language  of  the 
code  might  readily  be  sustained  by  the  courts. 

Attention  should  be  called  also  to  the  impropriety  of  per- 
mitting open  spaces  on  the  lowest  floor  of  the  building  to  be 
without  regulation  and  to  be  even  narrower  than  the  5  feet. 
If  any  differentiation  is  to  be  made  it  should  be  upon  a  totally 
different  basis.  At  the  lowest  floors  the  courts  are  needed 
to  be  wider  than  elsewhere,  as  conditions  of  darkness  are  at 
their  maximum  the  lower  down  we  go  in  the  building,  and 
the  need  for  a  wide  court  on  the  ground  floor  is  much  greater 
than  it  is  on  the  top  floor.  Attention  should  be  called  to 
the  fact  that  although  this  secfi<  n  refers  to  courts,  the  term 
"court"  is  not  defined.  It  would  be  entirely  feasible  for  an 
owner  to  evade  even  these  meagre   requirements  by  calling 


12 


his  open  spaces  "shafts"  and  building  them  less  than  5  feet 
wide.  Air-shafts  for  light  and  ventilation  have  been  recog- 
nized by  architects  for  many  years,  and  the  term  "court" 
has  no  legal  significance  except  in  the  tenement  house  law. 
As  has  already  been  stated,  there  is  no  apparent  recogni- 
tion of  the  essential  difference  between  certain  kinds  of  courts, 
of  the  important  distinction  between  inner  courts  and  outer 
courts.  Nor  is  there  any  provision  made  for  securing  venti- 
lation for  inner  courts  through  horizontal  intakes  at  the  bot- 
tom which  will  secure  a  proper  draft,  a  feature  which  has 
been  found  in  practice  in  recent  tenement  construction  to  be 
of  the  greatest  value.  On  the  contrary,  all  courts  seem  to  be 
lumped  together  under  one  treatment,  and  can  be  built  any 
shape  or  kind  so  long  as  they  are  5  feet  wide.  To  permit 
such  miserable  dark  pockets  in  the  case  of  other  buildings, 
is  to  return  to  all  of  the  evils  which  were  so  prevalent  in 
tenement  construction  twelve  years  ago  and  which  merited 
such  widespread  criticism. 


In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  we  respectfully  pro- 
test against  the  enactment  of  the  proposed  code  so  long  as  it 
contains  these  shockingly  inadequate  provisions  with  regard 
to  light  and  ventilation. 

We  would  respectfully  urge  that  proper  provisions  be 
enacted  which  will  ensure  in  future  buildings  of  all  classes 
sufficient  light  and  ventilation.  Unless  this  is  done,  we  sub- 
mit that  the  city  will  be  deliberately  encouraging  the  spread 
and  development  of  tuberculosis  and  thus  causing  each  year 
the  unnecessary  death  of  thousands  of  its  helpless  citizens. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PREVENTION 
OF  TUBERCULOSIS, 

By  Lawrence  Veiller, 
Director. 


13 


Committee 


Walter  Bensel,  M.  D. 
Hermann  M.  Biggs,  M.  D. 
J.  S.  Billings,  Jr.,  M.  D. 
John  W.  Brannan,  M.  D. 
Joseph  D.  Bryant,  M.  D. 
Johnston  de  Forest 
Robert  W.  de  Forest 
Edward  T.  Devine 
Michael  J.  Drummond 
Livingston  Farrand,  M.  D. 
Homer  Folks 
Lee  K.  Frankel 
Lloyd  C.  Griscom 
Luther  H.  Gulick,  M.  D. 
Robt.  W.  Hebberd 
J.  H.  Huddleston,  M.  D. 
Woods  Hutchinson,  M.  D. 

A.  Jacobi,  M.  D. 
Walter  B.  James,  M.  D. 
Miss  A.  B.  Jennings 

S.  Adolphus  Knopf,  M.  D. 
Alexander  Lambert,  M.  D. 
Ernst  J.  Lederle 
Egbert  Le  Fevre,  M.  D. 
Henry  M.  Leipziger 
Alfred  Meyer,  M.  D. 
James  Alex.  Miller,  M.  D. 
John  J.  Murphy 
Mrs.  James  E.  Newcomb 
Henry  Phipps 
T.  Mitchell  Prudden,  M.  D. 
E.  Guernsey  Rankin,  M.  D. 
Antonio  Stella,  M.  D. 
W.  G.  Thompson,  M.  D. 
E.  L.  Trudeau,  M.  D. 
Lawrence  VeillEr 

B.  H.  Waters,  M.  D. 

Staff 

Lawrence  Veiller,  Director 
Frank  H.  Mann,  Secretary 


May  15,  1912.  105   E.   22d   Street. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 


C28(Z3B)M100 


RCS11.1  C57 

Charity  organization  society  of 
the  city  of  New  York. Committee 
on  the  prevention  of  tuberculosis 
Memorandum  submitted  to  the 


